Resolve a path to the pack, card, manifest, rule, and other factors that determine it; read-only, with the exit code as verdict.
Which pack, card, manifest and rule resolved a path, and what else decides it. Read-only; the exit code is the verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. The phrase 'the exit code is the verdict' is cryptic and does not clarify the return shape, whether it merely diagnoses or also applies a rule, or what 'what else decides it' means operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no waste, which is good, but the second sentence is opaque rather than informative, so brevity here costs clarity instead of earning it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must explain what the agent gets back. Instead it offers the ambiguous 'exit code is the verdict', leaving the result shape, the meaning of 'what else decides it', and the diagnostic value undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the single parameter's documentation is only the word 'path', adding nothing. Per calibration, full coverage sets the baseline at 3, and the description provides no additional semantics for the path (format, absolute vs relative, resolution base).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description conveys that the tool explains how a path was resolved (which pack, card, manifest, rule), which is more than the bare name 'route'. However, it is phrased as a fragment ('Which pack... resolved a path') rather than a stated verb+resource, and it does not distinguish it from the similarly named sibling mind_route.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to invoke this versus siblings such as mind_route, gate, or port. The only hint is the implied 'explain a resolution' use case, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.